W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [VM,ALL] Revised VM Task Force description

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:10:36 +0100
Message-ID: <40DB0B0C.7080707@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
Cc: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>, SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>


>>I provide such rewording in-line below. (My rewording is perhaps 
>>excessively weasely)
> 
> 
> This would also be fine with me -- your proposed wordings are
> in fact very similar in tone to what I had written in the first
> place (i.e., I intended the lists as rough examples to indicate
> the scope I was picturing).  As always, though, I made a final
> pass to "omit needless words" (Strunk and White 1938, p.1)...

I think you omitted one or two too many, I have certainly put back in 
excess! There is a happy balance somewhere - my preference remains to 
move the lists out of the TF desc.

> 
> 
>>                                        (To indicate a substantive 
>>issue, I am not clear I agree with the proposed approach to namespace 
>>ownership, cf Patel-Schneider and Parsia's work on social meaning, 
>>presented as a poster at WWW2004)
> 
> 
> Hmm, if you mean the notion of Namespace Owner, this is
> something I find in the Proposed TAG Finding on Versioning
> XML Languages [1], Section 7.2: "Only Namespace Owners Change
> Namespace" (capitalized in the original).  I am new to W3C
> process so would like to clarify the extent to which we need
> to ensure that a SWBPD note is consistent with other W3C work
> (such as TAG Findings).
> 

I had missed that, there is also a mailing list public-sw-meaning@w3.org
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2004Jun/
which addresses some of these issues.



> In fact, if we could clarify that question, we could then 
> tighten up the current section on "Dependencies" (below), which
> is really a growing bibliography more than a Dependency section
> in the stricter sense.

Calling it a 'bibliography' in the TF desc may be clearer.
> 
> Tom
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning/


There is a bug with the ACLs you have to use:
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning


Hmmm, the status indicates that this is not yet a consensus document - 
this issue is, in my experience, a minefield.

What we did in RDF Core with related issues on social meaning was put up 
a document which had WG consensus [1], that got trashed in public review 
[2], and we withdrew the section that did not have consensus.

[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/#section-Meaning
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0366
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0486
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/meetings/tech-200303/social-meaning

Comment 0486 was accepted by the WG

I am a little concerned that some of the scope of this TF risks similar 
trashing, and wonder whether the deliverables can be staggered with less 
contentious ones first.

Jeremy

> 
> 
>>>DEPENDENCIES (in the broadest sense)
>>>   -- THES - SWBP Thesaurus Task Force
>>>      http://www.w3.org/2004/03/thes-tf/mission
>>>   -- FOAF
>>>      http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
>>>      http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/events/foaf-galway/
>>>   -- Dublin Core - DCMI, for example:
>>>      http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-namespace/
>>>      http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
>>>   -- Dublin Core - CEN MMI-DC Working Group
>>>      http://www.bi.fhg.de/People/Thomas.Baker/Versioning-20040611.txt
>>>      http://www.cenorm.be/isss/cwa14855/
>>>   -- Proposed TAG Finding on Versioning XML Languages
>>>      http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning/
>>>   -- SKOS - SWAD Europe
>>>      http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/thes/1.0/guide/
>>>      http://www.w3.org/2004/skos/core.rdf
>>>      http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/2003/11/21-skos-mapping
>>>   -- W3C TAG on "What should a 'namespace document' look like?
>>>      http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#namespaceDocument-8
>>>   -- SWAD-E Thesaurus (wants "standard" thesaurus change management 
>>>   guidelines)
>>>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2004Apr/
>>>   -- Image Annotation meeting in Madrid
>>>      http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2004/06/07/2004-06-07.html#1086615887.400193
>>>   -- Tim Berners-Lee on Evolvability
>>>      http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Evolution.html
>>>   -- OASIS Published Subjects Technical Committee
>>>      http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/3050/pubsubj-pt1-1.02-cs.pdf
>>>      http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tm-pubsubj
>>>      http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/docs/recommendations/issues.htm
>>>   -- OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content (Carl Mattocks)
>>>   -- Libby and Dan work on RDF query
>>>      http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2001/06/process/
>>>   -- Sandro's work on a vocabulary directory (reference needed)
>>>   -- Alan: experience in medical contexts with large vocabularies
>>>   -- Alistair: recommendations for change management
>>>   -- CORES Resolution on Metadata Element Identifiers
>>>      http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july03/baker/07baker.html
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 13:11:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC